As intellectual beings we seek to know the reality of how things appear to be versus how they really are. Historically the question, “what is real?” has been the subject of much philosophical conjecture. In comparing the synopsis from the movie The Matrix, Plato’s The Republic (The Allegory of the Cave), and Descartes, Meditation 1, I find both similarities and differences. While all three deal with the concept of false realities, both the Matrix and The Allegory of the Cave explore more the concept of two worlds, one world that has been created (an illusion) by outside sources, and the real word which is eventually revealed thus destroying the reality of those involved. While in contrast, in Meditation 1 Descartes takes a more introspective approach by analyzing reality with systematic doubt.
This leads them to the working life where you work under capitalists and accept orders from superior employers. Therefore they prepare for your working life which benefits the capitalists, however Functionalists view is that the family teaches us the shared norms and values of the society, but not just the norms and values of the ruling class. Although Marxists further argue the family does this through punishments and rewards and being role models. Also Feminists believe that Marxists do not give more attention to the exploitation of women within the family for example, the family produces labour at low cost to the capitalist system as
We will compare and contrast the different scenarios and information of all three sources to make up our own analysis of reality and knowledge. The similarities in these three scenarios are obvious. Descartes, in the Meditation on First Philosophy, 1641 and Neo, in The Matrix, started feeling skeptical about life, questioning life itself. They faced doubts about the reality of what they were seeing, skeptical of the reliability of their senses. Thinking that they were facing the possibility of a dream and not reality, they believed that they were unconsciously living manipulated by deception.
For Aristotle, Plato was a realist and Protagoras was a relativist. Essentially, he regards both theories as equally defective. J.D.G Evans attempts to analyze why Aristotle deems these theories inadequate and what position is left for Aristotle to take if both of the alternatives are defective. Repeatedly, Aristotle begins his accounts by criticizing the “answers of his predecessors” and, while there appears to be legitimate reasons to discredit them, he fails to provide an adequate alternate. The following passage from Eudemian Ethics (1235b 13-18) allows us to better comprehend Aristotle’s impression of philosophy, which in turn leads to a better understanding of how he reviews and resolves the aforementioned problem: We must adopt a line of argument which will both best explain to us the views held about these matters and will resolve the difficulties and contradictions; and we shall achieve this if we show that the conflicting views are held with good reason.
So Socrates comes up with an idea that by asking Euthypro what is nature of holy and unholy. Euthypro keeps giving him answers, but it is more like examples of the holy but he does not explain clearly the whole meaning of holy. Socrates asked “isn’t the holy is the same in every action? And isn’t the unholy are the exact opposite of the holy” (Page 7 6d-10d). This quotes Socrates is asking Euthypro if the holy is the same action from one thing to another or it is might be holy at one time but it could be unholy in another time.
Respect is important because society needs to have a positive perception of the Army in order for it to be successful. Selfless Service is putting the needs of the Army before your own, but also taking care of yourself and your subordinates. Honor provides the moral compass for individuals. It is the glue for the Army Values. Integrity and personal courage are important because a Soldier must do what is right all the time even if they are scared.
This is a counter to Locke’s argument but I feel it is a poor one as the premises are not certainly true they are based on falsehoods especially ones about God being the perfect being; that just depends what you believe. Therefore I believe Rene’s God argument poses no significant threat to Locke’s theory. Plato, one of the men who influenced Descartes, argued that not only some ideas and knowledge are innate but
A philosopher such as Freud would agree with me because he argued that our Conscience is a construct of the mind. Freud did not believe in any absolute moral law therefore the content of our conscience is shaped by our experiences - our conscience is learned. He argued that the human mind is split into three separate parts. The id is basic instincts and desires such as hunger, which are present at birth. The ego balances the desires and needs of both the id and the super ego.
In comparison to Clytaemnestra and Agamemnon, Plato feels that a balance between the three elements “unlike courage and wisdom, each of which resides in one part, making the city brave and wise respectively, moderation spreads throughout the whole (Plato 431-432e)” is a necessity for intelligence. Therefore lust and desire must be contained and the just man needs to continuously seek justice through the exercise of moderation. Aeschylus shows us how Clytaemnestra seeks justice based upon her own actions and motives, lust, money, and power. Plato will argue that the imbalance of her soul (rationalization, appetite, and spirit) causes her to rule the city unjustly and selfishly. The good life cannot be reached within the city if the people do not have their souls
My interpretation leads me to believe that Euthyphro contradicts himself. Socrates searches for a deeper understanding of what piety means and questions Euthyphro authoritative stance. Socrates questioning convinces me that Euthyphro understanding is subjective. I will give provide examples of how Socrates convinces me that Euthyphro’s multiple definitions of piety are flawed. Euthyphro’s second definition states “what is dear to the gods is pious, and what is not is impious”.